Judge Trims Most Dali Civil Damage Claims in Key Bridge Case

Court Narrows Scope of Dali Litigation

A federal district court in Maryland has dismissed the bulk of the remaining economic-loss claims tied to the containership Dali’s allision with Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, while allowing a handful of claims to move forward. According to a report by The Maritime Executive, Judge James K. Bredar issued the ruling on August 25, resolving a question the court had deferred for months: how far a century-old Supreme Court precedent should limit recovery for parties without a direct property stake in the bridge itself.

The Robins Dry Dock Question

At the center of the decision is the 1927 Supreme Court case Robins Dry Dock & Repair Company, which bars recovery of purely economic losses from negligence unless the claimant also suffered physical damage to their own property. That case involved a vessel propeller damaged during maintenance, leading to a two-week delay and a rejected claim for lost profits. Grace Ocean, owner of the Dali, and Synergy Marine, its manager, had invoked Robins since October 2024 to challenge economic claims, alongside a separate motion citing the Shipowners’ Limitation of Liability Act of 1851.

Judge Bredar described the precedent as having “loomed large” over the case, noting nearly a century of subsequent case law shaping exceptions to the rule. Applying that body of law, the court dismissed claims from Star Bulk over lost berth access and profits, a class of longshoremen who lost work, an insurance syndicate, Ports America Chesapeake, American Sugar Refining, and a broad group of businesses and individuals — including a yacht sales firm and a publishing company — that argued the port closure and bridge loss disrupted their operations.

Claims That Survive

Not every claim was dismissed. The City of Baltimore’s claim for damage to a water main running beneath the bridge will proceed, though the court rejected the city’s broader claims covering the bridge itself and other roadway damage, finding the city lacked a sufficient proprietary interest in the Key Bridge beyond the water main. Baltimore County similarly retains a claim tied to debris reaching its shoreline and damaging its waterways, even as related roadway claims were dismissed.

The last surviving claim is a class action from trucking company R.E. West, covering physical damage to cargo aboard the Dali that resulted directly from the allision and the bridge’s collapse onto containers. Portions of that claim unrelated to physical cargo damage were dismissed.

Case Already Substantially Settled

The ruling affects only a fraction of the original litigation. Of the 54 initial claims filed in the civil case, all but 10 have already been settled or voluntarily withdrawn, including all wrongful death and personal injury claims and those brought by the state of Maryland. The parties agreed in June to pause the remaining disputes while the court worked through the Robins question, which Judge Bredar’s 75-page opinion now resolves for most of what remained.

What It Means for Owners and Managers

This ruling reinforces how difficult it remains for third parties — port users, cargo interests, and local businesses — to recover pure economic losses following a major casualty, even one as disruptive as a bridge collapse that shut a busy harbor for weeks. For ship owners and managers, the case underscores the practical value of documenting physical damage precisely, since claims tied to tangible property loss, like the surviving cargo and water-main claims, fared far better than those based on lost business opportunity. It’s also a reminder for charterers and terminal operators exposed to port disruptions that liability recovery routes are narrow, and that contractual protections and insurance coverage—rather than tort claims against a vessel’s owner—may be the more reliable path to covering disruption-related losses. The decision is likely to become a significant reference point in future maritime casualty litigation involving indirect economic harm.

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.